Robert Pattinson for The Hunger Games: Catching Fire?

News Simon Brew 23 May 2012 - 06:10

Could Twilight star Robert Pattinson be signing up for The Hunger Games sequel?

And a very warm welcome to rumour of the day. With work all but done for him, save for promotional duties, on Twilight: Breaking Dawn Part 2, Robert Pattinson will soon be a man without a franchise. Yet it seems as though Lionsgate may have plans for him.

A rumour has sprung up that suggests Pattinson is on the firm's wanted list for its second The Hunger Games movie, Catching Fire. Production on Catching Fire is set to start this autumn, ahead of the movie's planned release in November 2013. And apparently, Pattinson is being sought for the role of Finnick Odair (a previous winner of The Hunger Games).

What gives the rumour just a little bit of added weight is the involvement of Francis Lawrence. Lawrence has been chosen to direct Catching Fire, and is busy preparing for the shoot now. Lawrence's last film? That'd be Water For Elephants, which just happened to star Robert Pattinson.

We'll keep you posted on the rumour (and right now, it is just that), and for now, you can read more about it here.

Follow our Twitter feed for faster news and bad jokes right here. And be our Facebook chum here.

Disqus - noscript

Oh Jesus really?

To be fair, he is a good fit for Finnick, but I don't want everyone flocking to Catching Fire like its some sort of Twilight replacement, just to see him. It's worth SO much more than that. 
Plus, his acting in Twilight is pretty terrible. 

This is an absolute disaster. I absolutely loathe Twilight mainly because of this moody looking sun dodging pillock. I could just about stomach it if he was playing an avox that is killed within the first 15 seconds of the film but anything else is going to force me to tut indignantly and do my very best to not enjoy the film and the hot dog I will be eating during it.

Apparently the casting crew hasn't read the book.  Casting a pale git who always looks like he just smoked the world's biggest joint, who can't act, and who has no charisma at all, is just wrong. 

This may make my opinion invalid because I have resolutely avoided the Twilight movies so cannot comment on his acting ability or otherwise, however I definitely think this would be a move to 'grow' the audience for the sequel to ensure increased returns from the first movie as opposed to anything to do with suitability for the role.

The studio are seriously in danger of dropping the ball big time with the choices they're making for the sequel.

Oh no. I hope this rumour remains just that - a rumour. There are many more actors worthy of this role. The casting directors should be reminded that Finnick is supposed to be sultry, seductive, and the most sought-after person in the Capitol. He is supposed to make women of all ages swoon at his feet. No offence to Pattinson, but no self-respecting woman over the age of 18 could ever find him attractive. Ugh.

He's probably the best actor in Twilight.  He was good in Goblet of Fire as well.

I'm sorry, but he would be beyond awful for Fininck. Finnick is almost the opposite of a slightly odd looking pale chap. 

I wouldn't count him out just yet. David Cronenberg cast him in Cosmopolis, and I doubt he would have cast him unless he saw something particularly special in Pattison. Pattison is still young, he has yet to grow into his acting shoes, so we could very well see a completely different side to him in his future work...

No. We need a good actor. How about Ryan Gosling?

Please nooooooooooooooooo !!
Are they just doing this to bring in the twihards? Finnick was charming/a bit sleazy/loveable all rolled into one and every time I've seen Pattinson trying to do that he just comes across as a slimy turd

Actually... To be honest? I can see it. His performance in the Twilight movies is hardly Shakespeare, but give the guy a break - look at what he had to work with! He's a good physical fit (he is not that pale outside of Twilight, if anyone cares to check), he's capable of the performance Finnick would require, and like it or not, The Hunger Games and Twilight franchises are both geared toward the same age group, which means that purely from a business standpoint (and that's what movie-making is, is a business), it makes a great deal of sense. I wouldn't doubt it a bit if this turned out to be true, and frankly, I don't think it'd harm the finished product one bit. I think Catching Fire has an awful lot more to worry about.

Funny, seeing as an awful lot do... I saw a 40+ year old woman wearing an Edward sweatshirt the other day. Yikes.

Not a fan of the fellow myself, lookswise, but for whatever reason a great deal of women are... Who knows? I'll stick to ogling Michael Fassbender myself.

It is easy to hate Pattinson because of his connection with the Twilight but I am interested to see what he can do. People forget that Depp started his career in '21 Jump Street' - so I don't think you can judge an actor, because he has appeared in movies that are despised. If he can get a casting role in Hunger Games, then it is a good oppertunity to show people, whether or not, he can actually act.

How about just throwing the other Hemsworth brother in there as Finnick? I can see him being sultry and seductive enough!


Please let this be a joke


I like the campaign to get Jesse Williams cast as Finnick, though. Could see that working...



omg yall have weird names



I first thought no, then yes, then no and now I'm just confused... I somehow imagines Finnick as a fairly tanned blonde (forgive me if I've forgotten his description from the book, that's what I imagined) with a bit of a surfer look, I don't mind Pattinson but he just doesn't seem quite right...

My first thought was that instead of reading the books, someone assistant had read the Wikipedia enteries, sumerised the characters half heatedly, and the crew randomly started firing off actors who had been in teenage films, and Pattersons name had been the one shouted loudest. 

However, my next thought that, despite the fact I am not a twilight fan (will see the last film, if only to enjoy slating it legitamatly) Robert Patterson is not actually Edward Cullen! Yes, the character in twilight is terrible, but considering how badly he comes across in the books, I'd say Patterson's portrayal is pretty sound. 

This is exactly the same problem that occured when Danial Radcilff was announced for The Woman in Black. People were determined to stick to the opinions they'd formed during Harry Potter. And, though it wasn't the best film (the west end show is way better) I certainly enjoyed it, including Danial, despite thinking he was a little young to start with. (Though, to be fair, Arthur Kipps's age is never specified in the book, and in the era its set in, Danial would be old enough to be married with a young son) 

If this is genuinely true and not a rumor, then I'd treat Patterson like any other actor playing Finnick. Suspend judgment until the film. He may be good. He may be utter crap. The only way to find out is to watch Catching Fire. 

Sponsored Links